Research prompts built around real decisions.

Act as an experienced user researcher. Create a [DURATION] interview guide for [TARGET USER] about [PROBLEM AREA], answering [RESEARCH GOAL]. Start with context and recent behavior, then explore the current workflow, pain points, workarounds, consequences, triggering events, and decision criteria. Avoid leading questions and hypothetical feature pitching. Add neutral follow-up probes and explain what evidence each section is designed to uncover.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Synthesize [SOURCES] to answer [RESEARCH QUESTION] for decision [DECISION]. Create a source table with type, date, relevance, and limitations. Then summarize converging findings, disagreements, plausible explanations, evidence gaps, and practical implications. Distinguish direct evidence from inference. Do not invent citations or details not present in the sources. State what the evidence can support, what it cannot support, and the next evidence worth collecting.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Evaluate [SOURCE MATERIAL] as evidence for [CLAIM] in [USE CASE]. Assess authorship, expertise, publication context, methodology, sample, transparency, incentives, recency, relevance, and corroboration. Separate issues that reduce credibility from issues that merely limit applicability. Quote only short necessary fragments. Return a confidence assessment with reasons, what can safely be cited, what needs qualification, and stronger source types to seek.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Compare [OPTIONS] for [DECISION CONTEXT] using [CRITERIA] and evidence [EVIDENCE]. Define every criterion before scoring. For each option provide supported strengths, limitations, costs, risks, dependencies, and unknowns. Use the same evidence standard across options. Show how the recommendation changes when criterion weights or key assumptions change. If the evidence is insufficient, recommend a test rather than a false winner.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Design a survey for [TARGET POPULATION] to address [RESEARCH OBJECTIVE] and inform [DECISION], within [CONSTRAINTS]. Define constructs, sampling approach, screening, question order, response scales, analysis plan, and limitations. Draft concise neutral questions and explain what each measures. Check for leading wording, double-barreled questions, overlap, missing options, recall burden, and privacy concerns. Do not promise representativeness without a valid sampling plan.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Create a research plan for decision [DECISION]. Known evidence: [KNOWN EVIDENCE]. Knowledge gaps: [KNOWLEDGE GAPS]. Timeframe: [TIMEFRAME]. Rank gaps by decision impact and uncertainty. Recommend methods, participants or sources, recruitment or access needs, protocol, evidence quality criteria, synthesis approach, milestones, risks, and stopping conditions. Include a lean version and a more rigorous version, explaining what confidence each can provide.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Review [PLAN OR PROPOSAL] in context [CONTEXT] using [AVAILABLE EVIDENCE]. Extract assumptions about users, demand, behavior, operations, technology, timing, cost, regulation, and adoption. Rewrite each as a testable statement. For every assumption record supporting evidence, contradictory evidence, impact if false, uncertainty, owner, cheapest useful test, and decision deadline. Prioritize assumptions with high impact and weak evidence.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Using only [SOURCE SUMMARIES], create a concept map for [TOPIC] within [SCOPE]. Identify core concepts, competing definitions, relationships, mechanisms, methods, schools of thought, and unresolved questions. Link every observation to the relevant supplied source. Note where sources use the same term differently or disagree. Do not invent publications or citations. Finish with a reading sequence and gaps that require primary-source review.

EXPERT EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.